home

The Trouble With A Personality Based Movement

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

blogtopus sent me this link which captures my concern about whether Obama is really building a movement for the Democratic Party. In the Texas primary, the Dallas Morning News found:

Backers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned out with passionate support for their candidate in last week's Texas primary. But once they got in the voting booth, they did something different. Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

. . . [T]he numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he's not the nominee – blunting the flood of new voters who Democrats hope will help revive the party in Texas and sweep it into the White House.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is a reason for this. Obama's campaign is not affirmatively pro-Democratic or even anti-Republican. They say that one of the key things a politician can do is ask for the voters' votes. In that sense, Obama never seems to ask (the exception being to ask for a vote for Bill Foster in the IL-14 race) the voters to vote for Democrats. This could be the upshot of Barack Obama's post-partisan Unity Schtick. We'll see.

< Corzine And Rendell To Raise 15MM For MI/FL ReVotes | The Last Thing Obama Wants Is . . . >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Trouble With A Personality Based Movement | 124 comments (124 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Isn't this (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM EST
    one of the criticisms against Clinton? that she'd damage support for down-the-line candidates? Seems to not hold water.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:02 AM EST
    People might still vote for Dems downticket in November when it's a choice between parties. In a primary they might not think they have enough information to chose between two candidates of the same party.

    Still, as Obama draws in more Independents and Republicans, I don't know why those voters would necessarily vote for Democrats downticket in the fall.

    [ Parent ]

    In Nov (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    the  Republicans while voting for Obama could vote Republican down ticket, which is only natural

    [ Parent ]
    He is a uniter, right? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MMW on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:04:16 AM EST
    This seems more likely - He is after all pleadging to work with both. Therefore to his supoorters it doesn't matter who else is down ticket. He'll work with both.

    Also he supports everything for everyone, it is only right that they ensure there beliefs carry the day.

    He has shown no affection for democratic principles - he's not running on them.

    [ Parent ]

    I cringe when I hear Uniter (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:09:05 AM EST
    He will need to be called something else as all I can hear is "I am a Uniter" per George Bush. Yeah, that worked out well.

    [ Parent ]
    This is another good reason for (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    the Superdelegates et al to look not only at the states each candidate was highly competitive in, but which voters each candidate actually carried.  I believe that his support is a fad, more than a movement and I am not as enchanted with "all of these new voters" as the media and all seem to swoon over. Obama as VP to Clinton is a good place for him to learn "the ropes".

    [ Parent ]
    and which completely (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    wipes out the argument many are trying to make that Obama would be "better for down ticket democrats".
    doesnt it?


    [ Parent ]
    Support (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    The down ticket candidates will get voted for if Obama endorses them?

    Isn't this the same discussion as to which supporters are going to drop off no matter which candidate gets the nom?  The discussion as to whether Obama supporters would last until November was an issue also.

    [ Parent ]

    Really (none / 0) (#127)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:17:41 AM EST
    If they don't have enough information now I think it's a pretty safe bet that they could care less.

    It doesn't change the fact that Clinton voters were esentially Democrats and numerous Obama supporters aren't Democrats, aren't anything at all.  

    Remember that many of Obama's supporters are neophytes and people who are confused by politics.

    Without that support Obama would be toast.

    It's an illustration of just one of the major flaws in the primary/caucus system.

    [ Parent ]

    In fact, the Pew poll says... (none / 0) (#72)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    ... that twice as high a percentage of Hillary's supporters would refuse to vote for Obama in the general as vice-versa.

    Hillary's campaign is even bragging about that fact.

    So tell me, who is really operating a cult of personality?

    [ Parent ]

    That is a bad sign (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    Perhaps Obama should stop with the dogwhistling sexism, then maybe he might not be alienating so many people, especially women.

    Let's face it: If Hillary used as many dogwhistle comments about race as Obama uses about gender, she'd probably be offending many more Obama supporters.

    FWIW I think we should vote for a democratic candidate in November, no matter who it is.

    I'd like to see this question asked in other states, see if they hold up.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Just Dogwhistling (none / 0) (#129)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:37:00 AM EST
    For this old Democrat Obama's attacks on Democrats from the right, his Friedmanesque economic team, his promise to compromise with Republicans and assaulting a major progressive program vastly outweigh his sexist dogwhistling and blatant race baiting as a reason to support Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    That correlates with this from Rasmussen (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by tree on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM EST
    Clinton is viewed favorably by 73% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. However, that figure includes just 55% of Obama voters. Obama is viewed favorably by 69% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, a figure that includes 43% of Clinton supporters.

    According to Pew, it appears to be a result of Obama not appealing to the usual Democratic base.
    I suspect its more of an anti-cult vote, rather than a cult vote.

    The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.

    One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.

    In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.



    [ Parent ]
    Cult - Anti-cult (none / 0) (#128)
    by cal1942 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:28:30 AM EST
    It appears you're equating support for a political party's core values with a cult.

    Cults are generally narrower than the many and sometimes varied interests that constitute the values of a political party.

    Many of Obama's supporters exhibit cult behavior and it's illustrated by their behavior in the voting booth.

    [ Parent ]

    Repeat posting..but what is on mind (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:53:17 AM EST
    Repeating myself...I posted this earlier, well, when everyone was asleep in the "sexist question" .  

    Instead of bringing and building I hold that it's also breaking apart the Dem alliances.  

    When this election started I thought we would be talking about the economy and the future of American democracy in the new age of globalization.  I though Corporatism would be the unifying issue, instead, it has devolved into identity politics.
    Guess who wins?  Not the women, not the AA's, not the Latinos and not the Gay community.  We all lose.  This is about class.

     Personally, I do hold Obama responsible for making it an election about his "person" and not about the issues we are facing.  He has created a feeble movement that is held together by "his person" not by the ideals. In the process of creating this feeble movement, he has damaged the old alliances.   I wanted the Democratic lines to be forged together:  Labor, minorities, elderly, and add to that youth.  But we have devolved into mini bickerings that truly are not dignified.  They distract and we have no time.

    I thought Katrina would have been the 9/11 unifying populist symbol the way 9/11 was the "security" symbol.   But no, we are back where the powers that be want us.  The GE will end up being a "how mean can you be fest"
    I've always been skeptical (5.00 / 11) (#4)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    of the notion that Obama will have longer coattails than Hillary. This is just one of the many speculative assertions that Obama supporters like to spout as facts. It only seems logical to me that the candidate who brings out the base is going to bring more voters to the rest of the ticket. A Republican drawn to Obama has no reason to vote for other Dem candidates.

    A Republican drawn to Obama (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:06:41 AM EST
    has no reason to vote for other Dem candidates especially when Obama doesn't ask that Republican to do it.  His post partisan gig cuts him off from overtly selling the Democratic Party.  But I haven't really ever seen anything that leads me to believe that he has any real passion for the Democratic Party even in the practical way that Clinton seems to value it.

    [ Parent ]
    Another "fact" to be skeptical about (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    as noted in earlier threads, and which is part and parcel of getting downtickets elected, is the Dean-and-Brazile much-repeated statement that caucuses are better than primaries because caucuses are "party-building."

    There has been no evidence to support this argument.  After all, there has been no year like this before, with such large caucus turnouts.  So the impact on party-building of caucuses in the previous numbers of several hundreds statewide would have been negligible, anyway.  And only time can tell, in coming years, whether the hundreds of thousands turning out for this year's caucuses become "party-builders."  (Indeed, there are many testimonials by voters so turned off by the caucus chaos and intimidation tactics that, as those voters have said, they never will come back.)

    All we have is evidence that caucuses, like the Obama campaign, build a personality-based movement.  Bah.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny that, as Obama has already demonstrated... (none / 0) (#76)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:12:55 AM EST
    ... some coattails.

    What did Hillary do to elect Bill Foster?

    [ Parent ]

    Those aren't coattails. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    Coattails are when the presence of one candidate on the ballot pulls voters for another candidate.

    Obama cut a campaign commercial for Bill Foster and that was all to the good (notwithstanding the fact that within sixty days, Daily Kos will be awash in comments from people furious to find they've elected another Blue Dog right-wing Democrat).  Good for Obama, but I'll bet you that for every single candidate Obama has campaigned for around the country there are ten that the Clintons have worked hard for.

    [ Parent ]

    IIRC Hasn't Clinton's Coattails In NY Helped (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    turn many House districts blue.

    [ Parent ]
    you really only have to make the rounds (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    of Obama blogs and read their comments and this is glaringly clear

    Daily Frat and Others (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:28 AM EST
    They don't care - this is all about their man defeating that vile woman Hillary.  It's now the equivalent of a video game with hunter and prey.  Add in today's Andrew Sullivan bile comparing Hillary to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction - this is about finally killing that awful woman.


    [ Parent ]
    this is so dead on (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    particularly for "some bloggers" who will for the time being remain nameless.


    [ Parent ]
    It makes sense, though (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:42 AM EST
    since the Republicans crossed over for the primary they really have no desire for down ticket Democrats

    Not building a Party then (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:07 AM EST
    Building a candidacy. Nothing wrong with that but we need to build our Party and the standard bearer would need to do that.

    [ Parent ]
    This is your last chance (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:33 AM EST
    His whole if you don't elect me this is your last chance is also part of this personality thing.  There is no, we will work to struggle for change talk.  It's all " me, now or nothing".  I really, have a low tolerance for that kind of "movement" building.  Actually its more of building and demagogue.  

    [ Parent ]
    I am confused (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM EST
    Am I the one I have been waiting for or is it Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    This has really bothered me (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by BernieO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:37 AM EST
    Obama often seems to deliberately try to distance himself from his party in order to appeal to Republicans and independents. His remarks about not wanting to refight the fights of the 60's is a good example. Considering that the fights were about a disastrous war, ending discrimination against blacks, women, etc. he is implying that he does not want to fight for core Democratic values.
    If we want to build the party, we Democrats need a spokesperson to clearly define our values and world view and make a case for them to the public. The Republicans have done this successfully since Reagan, promoting a philosophy based on everyman-for-himself (Reagan was an Ayn Rand fan). As a result they have implemented greed-is-good, power-to-the-wealthy policies and destroyed protections for the average citizen. Democrats have done very little to counter this world view, instead addressing problems in a defensive scatter-shot manner. They seem to assume that people understand why they fight for things like Social Security or rather than explaining why these things matter.
    With Obama's gift for oratory I expected him to make the case for the values of the Democratic party and against the ruinous principles and policies of the Republicans. I was shocked to find that he seems more willing to attack fellow Democrats rather than take on the Republicans in a serious, comprehensive manner.
    We will never have a better opportunity to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans than we have now. After eight years of ruinous Republican rule, the case should be easy to make that their way does not work. How hard would it be to point out that Republicans got to do things their way in the 80's and again for the last 8 years and both times their economic policies drove us deeply into debt while disproportionately benefitting the wealthy.  Their deregulation policies led to the S&L collapse as well as our current mortgage meltdown. Then their is the result of their macho war mongering.....
    Obama needs to stop making this race about him and start making it about changing the minds of Americans about what Democrats stand for.  


    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    which is why I think Dean's desire to see Obama's supporters bringing in more money to the DNC won't hold up

    [ Parent ]
    but but but (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM EST
    he would be so great for "down ticket democrats" right?
    Claire McCaskill say so.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny How Obama Could Only Win The (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    traditional Democratic counties here in MO. Clinton won all the rest. So he won the counties that the Dems always win. How does that help Dems in the rural areas where Clinton won? Also, the idea that Hillary will bring out more Republicans in the GE  becomes moot if eliminating "affirmative action" is on the ballot in November.

    Another troubling thing about McCaskill's endorsement of Obama. McCaskill has consistently voted with the Republicans on Iraq and FISA. People on DK who in the past strongly railed against such votes have now announced how much they really, really like Claire.  Now that she is the great Senator from MO, how much pressure are they going to put on her to change her votes.  
     

    [ Parent ]

    I don't go there anymore so (none / 0) (#110)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:54:52 AM EST
    maybe you can tell me if they now like Tom Daschle, who they used to revile?

    I know they don't like Paul Krugman and Joe Wilson anymore. Just doesn't seem very progressive to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I Haven't Gone There For A While (none / 0) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM EST
    But I was going to the site when McCaskill endorsed Obama. I am familiar with many of names of the people from MO and was very upset with how they suddenly just loved Claire. Complete turn-a-round for many of these folks.  

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds to me like Republican voters who hate the (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by DemBillC on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    Clintons and ar voting for Obama. Of course they will vote McCain once the primaries are over.

    Except for the Republicans... (none / 0) (#77)
    by tbetz on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    ... who followed Rush Limbaugh's instructions and voted for Hillary in an effort to monkeywrench Obama's campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    More fun with statistics (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by muffie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:08:32 AM EST

    It's not surprising to me that Obama supporters are proportionally less likely to vote downticket.  The question is whether the absolute number of voters is increased.

    In the case of Dallas county, the article says that Obama run 66% of the vote, and the downticket dropoff was 30%.  However, the number of primary voters increased from 51775 voters to 297336 -- a factor of about 5.7.

    On the other hand, consider Webb county, where the downticket dropoff was only 11%, and Hillary won 88% of the vote.  There, the number of primary voters increased from 27120 to 41866 -- a much smaller increase of about 1.5 times.

    Obviously, one should analyze the rest of the counties to better speculate on what the data is really indicating.  But I think it's very possible that while fewer Obama voters vote downticket, he draws in a higher proportion which more than compensates.  Of course, all the usual caveats apply: this applies only to the primary, there's a long way to the general, etc.

    Do you see the flaw in your argument? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    The measuring of primary turnout increase over a noncontested primary in 2004 is simply absurd.

    It has no meaning.

    The behavior of those who came to vote DOES have meaning.

    [ Parent ]

    Noncontested at the pres level (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by IVR Polls on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    Webb County had a very hotly contested Congressional primary in 2004 - Cuellar v Rodriguez. It had the highest 2004 turnout rate in the state and still increased 50% for 2008. Dallas had 26% turnout in 2008, Webb had 42%.

    As for 'More fun with statistics' - Clinton won 95 of the top 100 TX counties ranked by turnout rate in 2008.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    for correctin the conventional wisdom again!


    [ Parent ]
    Nothing conventional about South Texas (none / 0) (#118)
    by IVR Polls on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    nt

    [ Parent ]
    That sounds like (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by 0 politico on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:48 AM EST
    a commodity model of seeling products.  Sell enough of them and you will profit - though the margin will be lower.

    I'm not sure how this helps other dems on a state ticket, or Dem led inniatives, if too many people come in only to vote for their "presidential candidate of choice."  Do they know what is going on in their neighborhood?  Do they even associate themselves with the democratic platform, or are they only choosing a poster boy?

    [ Parent ]

    Well Dems For A Day Aren't Going To (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:23 AM EST
    vote for any Dem in November let alone down ticket Dems.

    Be interesting to see if Obama is the nominee, how much actual support he will get from cross over Republicans.

    Actually (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM EST
    Foster is not really the "exception."  Obama campaigned for a lot of Dems in 2006 and I'm sure he will be cutting many ads, making joint appearances, etc. this year.

    He is good at asking people to vote for a specific Democrat.  What he's not good at is giving people reasons to vote for "generic Democrat," reasons for them to believe the Democratic agenda is inherently superior.  In fact, he manages to blur that with his constant "both sides are to blame" rhetoric.

    There's no question Obama has a big celebrity presence and that's an attention-getter for anyone he campaigns with.  But that's not generally what we mean when we talk about coattails.  Bush had coattails in 2004 because he convinced enough voters that only Republicans could keep the country safe.

    Will he be cutting 300 ads? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    Well, he is all things to all people...

    [ Parent ]
    Given the 2006 election. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Arbitrarity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:17 AM EST
    I doubt he's going to cut 300 ads, but every one he does will be more than Hillary does.

    [ Parent ]
    Why should he? (none / 0) (#96)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    That movie came out a LONG time ago. And I don't know how Obama would be recognizable with that helmet on.

    [ Parent ]
    I deleted a few comments (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:30 AM EST
    that insulted Obama. No one gets to insult either candidate.

    Stick to the issues.

    There has to be a Democratic party (5.00 / 9) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    in order for me to want to return to it.  It is time to build that platform.  I realize after reading this that this has been largely why I am SO TURNED OFF BY OBAMA.  Bipartisan unity has literally destroyed our military.  It is going to have to be rebuilt again just like after Vietnam.  We are still sending soldiers back into combat who have no business going because they are having psychological difficulties from their previous tours.  The conservative movement has laid this nation out and we haven't even felt or dealt with the economy yet.  One of my conservative friends told me yesterday that he hoped that Obama and Clinton just tore each other up because it improves things for McCain.  I almost fell out of the lunch booth laughing.  He reads all the economists that I do so I had to remind him that by election time the economy is going to suck so bad all anybody is going to need to do is point at McCain and hiss and in the mindset of the nation he's from a pod.  I learn from my mistakes in my life.  I don't like failing but I fear denial of failures a whole lot more.  We don't need to make friends with those who have led us to this point and the only good it serves is building a candidacy, it does not build a party and I happen to think this country needs a strong out front and unafraid Democratic party and not friendships and capitulations. There's all the time in the world for garden parties when the dust settles.

    how can obama have coat tails? (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    he isn't carrying the typical democratic base. he has lost the big states. he is driving off hillary supporters. he is making comments about social security, nasa, foreign policy, health care, bill clinton, etc that turn the base off, off, off. except for the obama followers who refuse quite often to critically think about this, there is no there there. hence no coat tails!

    I've seen some anecdotal evidence to support this (3.85 / 7) (#42)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:23:10 AM EST
    And it's concerning. I work for Mark Udall, the Democrat running for U.S. Senate in Colorado. Repeatedly I've spoken to ardent Obama supporters who didn't know there was a Senate race, didn't know who Mark Udall was--despite his being a prominent member of congress for 5 terms, didn't know the difference between House and Senate, etc. Despite Obama being a Senator.

    It's beautiful that all these new people are getting involved. But now they are panicking about the Convention/Assembly process, completely uninformed about the downticket races, and threatening to vote McCain if Hillary wins.

    Obama owes it to the nation to keep messaging to his supporters about what a difference they will make not just to Obama but to the House and Senate, give them an ongoing civics lesson, and percolate the "movement" into a movement, not just a cult of personality.

    And Hillary should too. Her campaign has been criminally hostile to downticket campaigns. While her base of supporters does seem better informed, her campaign is not making any friends among downticket campaigns just due to her campaign's odious behavior. She could make up for some of that by re-focusing her people in the states where the primaries are over onto the Senate and House races where a real difference can be made between now and when the nominee is decided.

    Thanks Mike (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM EST
    Your reasoned and informed comment on this subject is very welcome.

    [ Parent ]
    What is reasoned and informed (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    about his last paragraph, please?  Could we have some evidence for the statement that the other campaign is just as bad for the downticket candidates?  That it is "odious" and even "criminal"?

    This seems to be the sort of comment that usually is criticized here and even deleted.  Instead, this one is "welcome."  Excuse me, but I don't see why -- unless it's because it comes from a (self-proclaimed; I don't know) party insider?

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:50:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:30:47 AM EST
    that Hillary has the opposite problem from Obama, in that her rhetoric and message clearly give people a reason to vote Dem (not just for Hillary), but in terms of the nuts and bolts of politics she really hasn't been there supporting the actual downticket campaigns.

    As I write this comment, it occurs to me that a Clinton/Obama ticket offers the best of both worlds...

    [ Parent ]

    Welcome to my world (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    what about Sheldon Whitehouse? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by wreck on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:16:37 AM EST
    What about Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island? He's "downticket," right? Hillary and Bill made some big endorsements of him, did rallies and held fundraisers. That's a big "downticket" endorsement that has meant a lot. Whitehouse has been a good Democratic addition to the Senate. 97th in Seniority but still gives a good grilling to Mukasey about waterboarding.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (none / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:37:17 AM EST
    To be honest, this definition of "downticket" isn't quite right because Whitehouse was not on the same ticket with Bill or Hillary, just as Bill Foster wasn't on the same ticket with Obama.  There are no "coattails" in either case.

    The issue you're raising, which is the same as the issue with Foster's special election, is whether these candidates have the ability to help Democrats get elected by leveraging their celebrity status.  Clearly they both do, but it's sort of irrelevant to the question of who the nominee should be.  The Clintons can still help individual Democrats get elected whether or not she's the nominee, and the same is true for Obama.  Obama stumped for many Democrats in 2006 and he wasn't a presidential candidate then, not even a potential one.

    [ Parent ]

    Movement or Fad? (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM EST
    This is why the Obama phenomenon is more akin to a pop culture happening than a political movement.  And the American public has been trained to occasionally swoon over pop culture "stars" who land on the media radar screen and develop an outsized presence.

    IMHO, unlike the Dean campaign, which was based on a principled opposition to the prevailing party ethos, the Obama phenomenon is more analogous to American Idol - with the attendant superficiality, as evidenced by these downticket reports.

    [ Parent ]

    Pet Rock Movement n/t (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:21:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Mining snark out of the same vein (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:37:51 PM EST
    My (apolitical) spouse calls the Obama "movement" Mambo No. 5. It's the Baha Men remake ... not the smokin' (Domaso) Perez Prado original, which laid ground and sounded fresh till, well, the Baha Men ate lunch off it.

    I give Obama himself more of the benefit of the doubt than I do than his campaign and his followers who are a little too self-congratulatory over stuff like, eg, being the change they want to see in the world or having a dream about the promised land, um, and stuff.

    Thing is, when Gandhi and MLK respectively promoted those ideas, those men of progress were at the tip of the march and taking the brunt of the criticism and pain. They weren't media darlings and didn't pout if they got bad press or couldn't control a news cycle or weren't given open-ended time to expound on an ancillary train of thought in a televised appearance.

    Obama's hiding BEHIND his supporters, who are pre-emptively hard-selling buy or else F.O.A.D. and/or slinging crap at anyone who displays routine skepticism, never mind dishes back in kind what TeamO was flinging first.

    Another notable flaw in the hard sell from TeamO and support: the Repugs haven't signed on to being the change that Obi-wan wants them to be. He may have utterly convinced his followers, but they're not the ones he'll be "uniting", should he survive the election, come the next admin.

    Big difference between the real thing and karaoke.

    [ Parent ]

    Lou Bega (none / 0) (#119)
    by Fultron on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:36:41 PM EST
    did the remake of Mambo No. 5. The Baha Men did "Who Let The Dogs Out". However, that this has been largely forgotten 10 years later speaks to the larger point about pop culture phenomena. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! I stand corrected (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:09:00 PM EST
    And just because I LOVE the mambo, I'm kind of glad/proud I could pull Perez Prado out of my brain without effort but get Lou Bega and the Baha Men wrong.

    If that makes me an elitist, I'm damn PROUD of that. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Could you please provide (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:22:01 AM EST
    evidence for your last paragraph stating that the other candidate's campaign is odious, hostile, even criminal?  And is this sort of statement good for the party in reverse -- i.e., "upticket"?

    And more explication, please, of why presidential-campaign staff ought to be taken from states where primaries are over and put back into states where primaries also are over, but put into state-level campaigns -- rather than those staff being sent on to states where primaries still are ahead?  

    Or are you saying that these are not "her" staff but residents of those states where primaries are past?  In my state, with our primary over, we are still working for our other candidates.  If this is not happening in Colorado, why not?  And whose task is it to do so, if these are not "her" staff but local volunteers?  This all is quite unclear.

    [ Parent ]

    i take issue with your use of the (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST
    words criminal and hostile. please refrain from attacking the candidates in that manner.

    [ Parent ]
    "Criminally hostile" (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    Could you please expand on this a bit?  I don't really know what that means.

    And if that is the case, I wonder why, since the Clintons have both done an enormous amount of work for Dem. congressional candidates in the past.


    [ Parent ]

    No thanks from me without specifics (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    With all due respect, Mike, your post looks like a drive by hit to me.

    Nothing really negative about Obama, not really even negative about his supporters.  They are just "kids" afterall.

    And, gee, a civics lesson by the Great BO will solve that problem in a flash.

    Yet Hillary's campign is "criminal" and "odious."

    This looks like the typical Obamaphile post to me.

    If you're going to make such negative and destructive accusations I want to know the specifics that lead you to your conclusion.

    If you can't provide them, and can't back them up with hard facts (like quotes, or unbiased third party observations), then you are no differnet than many of the Obamaphiles posting here or everywhere else in left blogistan.

    To wit, you're "personal observations" aren't welcome ... at least not to me.
     

    [ Parent ]

    I appreciate the comment (4.80 / 5) (#59)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    but you lost me with the argument that Hillary is hurting other candidates with her "odious" campaign. Many neutral observers have pointed out that this campaign is pretty par for the course. There are aspects of both campaigns that I don't like, but odious is a little over the top, IMO. If anything, Obama has been responsible for creating that image, by declaring everything Hillary does a "smear," and portraying her as a racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Just trust me (none / 0) (#66)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    The campaign's behavior was over-the-top. Odious is completely apt. It was not par for the course, I have been doing this a long time.

    [ Parent ]
    "Just trust me" is not (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    acceptable after attacks on a campaign, and thus a candidate, as odious, hostile, and even criminal.

    If you won't support it with evidence, you retract it.

    And as we have said of other candidates' supporters, how are you helping your candidate with such comments?  I am, sadly, now warily watching anything to do with Udall.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry? (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    Why on earth should I "just trust" you?

    If you have concrete points to make, make them.  Otherwise...


    [ Parent ]

    And I should note (none / 0) (#68)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST
    It's not a messaging thing, so no "smears" or "racism", it's just failure to play well with others.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean Kennedy/Kerry? (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:11:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No I'm talking about Colorado only (none / 0) (#88)
    by MikeDitto on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:47:37 AM EST
    I haven't had any interface with either campaign in other states. I'm not going to be specific because it's just grist for the mill and totally unnecessary at this point, except to note that both candidates need to be more cognizant of downticket races and realize that not only can they help or hurt downticket, but the reverse is also true.

    [ Parent ]
    "Just grist for the mill" and (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    "totally unnecessary at this point" does describe the final paragraph of your first post well, perhaps only leaving out "potentially libelous" and a few other phrases that come to mind.

    So if you won't support your statement with evidence, perhaps you could at least answer this question:  Who was that for?

    [ Parent ]

    Mike (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:50:51 PM EST
    Has been commenting here for several years. He has always been even handed. It seems commendable that he does not want spread dirt by lending the GOP specific attack points discovered through his personal observations in CO.

    FWIW, I trust that his comment is correct because of him, not and not because I think HRC is a creep, which I don't.

    She like Obama,is a pol, though and sometimes they are not nice, even to their own.

    [ Parent ]

    I hate to say it but... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    ..I'm getting a Ross Perot kind of feeling about this. Where is his movement now?

    [ Parent ]
    That's Odd (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:52:23 AM EST
    In CA I voted for Clinton and left the rest of the form blank.

    A personality based movement of 1?

    Perhaps.  Perhaps.

    No time to research the rest? (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:33 AM EST
    I usually make a cursory effort to figure out the rest of the ballot before I vote.

    This tells you why sample ballots from your friendly precinct captain can be so effective.

    [ Parent ]

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    One of the reasons why I support Clinton is what I call the Clinton brand.  There's a lot of noise in politics.  And my filter is imperfect.  In the end I know that Clinton's team will never allow themselves to administrate incompetence from the oval office.  There's a legacy there.  One that I think should be thought of as positive for the Democratic Party.

    I could go on.  Point is, the other stuff on the ballot was the gambling initiatives.  No one ever covered those on a blog, all I knew about them was one group financed by Nevada Casino's talking about how gambling is so bad (Got that?  Yep.  It's that funny.).

    The other group was talking about how I would want to raise taxes and hurt Native Americans, what have you.

    Just a lot of noise.  I knew nothing else about those initiatives.

    In the end, I did fall back on an idealogical position I have on the issue.

    I'm old enough to remember when there wasn't even a lottery.

    I find it immoral to have a rigged system (what gambling is, even if it's not intentional, the statistics are what they are) take the money out of poorer people's pockets so that richer people can pay less taxes.

    I viewed it then as a regressive tax, only the people paying it at least got to have the visceral thrill of believing they might be the one out 30 cadgillion who won.

    I voted accordingly just so on those issues.

    I lied above.

    But I wanted to make the point that I think Clinton's personality is awesome.

    I like that too!!!!

    [ Parent ]

    Judges always get me (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    It is inevitable that some judge is going to be on the ballot and I know nothing about whether they need to stay or go.  I end up ticked at myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Judicial retentions (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:45:54 AM EST
    are always a PitA.

    [ Parent ]
    Well you kind of stink as a citizen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    imo if you did that.

    Not to mention as a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]

    could I ask (none / 0) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST
    why you would do that

    [ Parent ]
    Because I like Clinton's Personality (none / 0) (#31)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    That much!

    [ Parent ]
    wow (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:17:59 AM EST
    you know, in the film industry I sometimes tell new people that they should remember that whatever movie they are working on, no matter how crappy it it, will be someones favorite movie and they should try to keep that in mind and do the very best effects they can no matter what they think about it.
    this must be like that.
    (ps- I am for Hillary but a personality cult built around her seems like sci-fi to me)

    [ Parent ]
    Let's do it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:19:19 AM EST
    Look what's done for Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    naaaa (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:21:04 AM EST
    I would rather lose than base a victory on the theories of North Korean politics

    [ Parent ]
    Awe C'mon (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    But she is likable, actually.

    [ Parent ]
    being from arkansas (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    I know this more than most.  but I also know she has had great difficulty making that side of her personality visible to large audiences.  honestly I think she has a tendency to come on rather school marmish.
    but she still cant hold a light to Al Gore in that respect.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow. Where was Clinton for Foster (none / 0) (#10)
    by Independence33 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:42 AM EST
    Obama took a chance and tested his endorsement capability and came through. This was huge for the Democratic party and Foster. Only on this site would he be attacked as not helping democrats right after he endorsed and sent 100 volunteers to help us win a huge victory. Lets go back to the Clinton presidency. The first time in 40 years that democrats lost both the senate and the house.

    Do you think Foster asked for her help? (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:02:20 AM EST
    I do not. You respect a campaign's wishes. You just do not go in and swoop into a campaign.

    You MUST know that. If you do not, then well, you know very little about politics.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    Careful with this "only on this site" stuff. No insults. I did not call you an idiot for making an idiotic argument.

    [ Parent ]
    Illinois (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    is home to both Obama and Foster, which may have had someting to do with it

    [ Parent ]
    Strangely irrelevant to this post (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    Yes, Obama's endorsement helped Foster win. That was great.

    What does that have to do with this post, which discusses the fact that, in Texas, many Obama voters didn't bother to continue voting downticket?

    [ Parent ]

    If you insist on blaming Bill C for the loss (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26:28 AM EST
    of his party seats in '94 you should at least understand the issues that led to the Democratic rout that year. And it wasn't because BC was elected the year before. Quit trying to peddle that story here.  We know the whole story.

    [ Parent ]
    A little testy this morning? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Independence33 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    It is a fact that THIS SITE has constantly questioned Obamas loyalty to the Democratic party. I came here today expecting some sort of acknowledgement that he indeed helped a fellow Democrat get to office in a important, symbolic race. Instead its all about him and his personality based movement. I have yet to call you an idiot or any of your arguments idiotic. Im sure Foster didnt want her help but thats the point isnt it. I enjoy coming to this site because like I said before it is important to see others point of view when they disagree with you. I think that I have been pretty brave coming here and at least presenting a dissenting opinion but if I am not welcome then Ill gladly stop posting.  

    You are suspended for the day (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:12:19 AM EST
    Do not comment further.

    I warned you and you decided not to heed my warning.

    You are suspended for the day.

    [ Parent ]

    You make good points, Independence. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    We have Obama helping a candidate win Dennis Hastert's old seat. That's pretty amazing, and it says something about Obama's coattails, even if people in Clinton's camp don't want to acknowledge it. I think that 1994 says something about Bill Clinton's coattails, not necessarily Hillary's.

    There is much belief that Obama would be better for Democrats on the ticket, most certainly in redder states. If you are a Dem candidate in Wyoming or Kansas with local popularity you would much rather have a candidate at the top of the ticket, even if he loses by ten points, than the one who'll lose by thirty-five points.

    When one studies the current breakdown for electoral victories with the two Democratic candidates, they both beat McCain, with Obama having a slight edge over Clinton. But if you figure a five percent boost for the Dems (something you'd hope would happen in the general election when the Republicans have to defend the economy) you get slightly better electoral results for Clinton, but a blowout by Obama.

    This should be reason enough for superdelegates who are office holders to vote for Obama.

    By the way, I hear a lot of talk here about mindless cult-like support for Obama. In my close to sixty years I've seen a lot of mindless support for political candidates. No more this year, although both Obama and Hillary have become symbolic of various constituencies.

    That was Post #1 for Monday, Jeralyn, if you're keeping count.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny how you were abole to express that (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM EST
    without attacking the site.

    That is the point for those who want to understand what is and is not acceptable here.

    [ Parent ]

    How can you say Obama has "coattails" (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ChrisO on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    when he wasn't even on the ballot in the Foster election? The issue isn't whether Obama would campaign for a Dem candidate. Any Dem wanting to be President gets out and campaigns for other Dems as much as possible. Both Bill and Hillary spend a lot of time fundraising for candidates.

    The question is whether Obama promotes support of the party to those who have been drawn to him from outside the party. He sends a not so subtle message that both sides in Washington are responsible for the vitriol we see there, which I categorically reject. This is actually one of the reasons I ended up supporting Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    BiP (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:09:07 AM EST
    Dennis Hastert's old seat was in IL, same State that Obama represents and face it, the DNC and grass roots effort for Forster was phenomenal - not Obama's endorsement.

    The problem with studying "the current breakdown for electoral victories with the two Democratic candidates" is that the media hasn't even started to say nasty things about Obama yet (they will if he's the nominee) and the Republicans can more easily swift-boat Obama ,  so look for the EV counts to be very different 6 months from now.

    [ Parent ]

    I know a number of people. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Arbitrarity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    Who met while volunteering for Obama and helped Foster.

    Is that coattails?  No.

    But it certainly says something about the people of his organisation, if not the organisation itself.

    [ Parent ]

    ok.. but it seems to be (none / 0) (#109)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:53:54 AM EST
    whoever the candidate of the month is on the Lefty blogs gets the attention; you're right its not coattails and it hurts the Democratic Party (even Dean's 50 state stategy is going to be a wash if Obama can't carry some of them down ticket)

    [ Parent ]
    How (none / 0) (#121)
    by Arbitrarity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:43:33 PM EST
    Does it hurt that a seat was picked up in the House, even if temporarily?

    It gives the democrats and voters confidence, particularly given the location of the seat.
    It used a large portion of NRCC money in a losing effort.

    Do explain, please.

    [ Parent ]

    Downticket in Obama's own state (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    is not the test of the coattail effect of a national candidate.  Coattails ought to have effect nationwide.

    The Foster campaign with Obama was a test of the Daley machine in Illinois.  Are we to be shocked and awed, I say shocked and awed, that the Daley machine gets its candidates like Obama and Foster elected?

    Hold the presses.  Machine politics work, and especially, as they say there, when done "the Chicago Way."  Wow.  

    [ Parent ]

    Except. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Arbitrarity on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    That it's not within the city of Chicago, so can hardly be solely attributed to Daley's machine.

    Additionally, it's from the Western Suburbs of Chicago, which, as we know from all this coverage, was held by Republicans for